Quoting luv2fly (Reply 5):I agree each parent thought the other one had handled it.

If I had a young child I'd keep my eye on them at all times especially when out and about and if I was leaving I would make sure they were with me and if they weren't I wouldn't just assume that they are with the mother, assumptions aren't good enough and don't stop bad things from happening. They both made the same assumption, so bad parenting x2.
They left it far too long to find out whether or not the other person had their daughter, I'd have immediately contacted the other person to find out before even leaving.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 4):Mr Cameron presumed that Nancy was in the car with his wife, while she thought that their daughter had jumped in with the Prime Minister.

This type thing has happened to EVERY set of parents at one time or another.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):If I had a young child I'd keep my eye on them at all times especially when out and about and if I was leaving I would make sure they were with me and if they weren't I wouldn't just assume that they are with the mother,

But you apparently don't have a child. And while your statement is true, and something all new parents say - the reality is that if you have more than one child and two forms of transportation - the likelyhood you will 'lose' one at some point is almost 100%.

Quoting Hywel (Reply 4):Nancy went off to the toilet without telling them.

My father left my sister at a restaurant at 4 am back in 1962 - same reason. He went in for a cup of coffee, and she went to the restroom without telling anyone. He was five miles down the road before my mom woke up - and could only count five kids in the back seat.

I've lost track of my son in a store when he was 'supposed to be' with his mom.

The part of the story which is more frightening to me is that the security detail of the PM could lose track of one of their charges.

---------------------------------

Another note to folks who are not from the UK - we Americans would presume that the PM and his wife were out drinking for an evening, and lost track of the kid due to lack of concentration after partying.

Pubs in the UK can be more like a Chili's or TGIF or Applebees - a restaurant with a good bar.

Have the pub not thought of contacting the NSPCC Helpline
If you have concerns about a child's safety and wellbeing, including a child in your family, you can use this form to tell the NSPCC Helpline. One of our advisors will read it within 24 hours and decide what action needs to be taken.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
If I had a young child I'd keep my eye on them at all times especially when out and about and if I was leaving I would make sure they were with me and if they weren't I wouldn't just assume that they are with the mother,

But you apparently don't have a child. And while your statement is true, and something all new parents say - the reality is that if you have more than one child and two forms of transportation - the likelyhood you will 'lose' one at some point is almost 100%.

Personal experience tells me that children are as slippery as eels, I've come close to losing my daughter in shops on a number of occasions, she's a few months older than David Cameron's daughter so I probably have some idea of the situation. There are two trains of thought when it comes to handling young children, some never let them out of their sight, accompany them to the toilet, deliver them by car everywhere etc. Others take the view that independence is a good thing and 8 year olds (and a lot younger) can take themselves to the toilet, walk to the village shop, walk round to their friends. My guess is that the Cameron's fall into the latter.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):The part of the story which is more frightening to me is that the security detail of the PM could lose track of one of their charges.

In the UK we provide little if any protection to anyone other than senior members of the Royal family and politicians, I would doubt that the Cameron's children are on the list.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 15):In the UK we provide little if any protection to anyone other than senior members of the Royal family and politicians, I would doubt that the Cameron's children are on the list.

Actually that concerns me, I am not a big fan of the overkill level of security the USA indulges in for the POTUS and other officials but I would think at this period in history the security detail assigned to the head of govt of one of the highest terror targets(arguably the 2nd) would at least have a watching brief over where the children of those leaders were.

My son has never wandered off when we're out, I always know where he is. My wife on the other hand, blink and she's gone. It doesn't help that she's only 5ft tall so can pretty much disappear behind any display in any shop.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 20):Yeah, because Ed Milliband is a great alternative? That buffoon can't even speak in a coherent manner, let alone run a country.

I didn't say he was - and anyway, why assume I'm a labour supporter? Cameron has f*cked everybody from Lands End to John O'Groats as well, and while Labour wasn't brilliant it was a lot better under Labour than Tory.

I didn't assume you were a Labour supporter. If you don't have Cameron you have Miliband, there is no viable alternative.

Quoting ajd1992 (Reply 22):and while Labour wasn't brilliant it was a lot better under Labour than Tory.

Yeah, they were brilliant. Leading us into illegal and unnecessary wars, giving away power/authority to the EU without holding a referendum, bowing to the every whim of the trade unions and racking up great quantities of debt in the process.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 20):As for leaving is daughter in a pub. It's a non-event, there certainly isn't a link between it and his ability to run a country. An innocent mistake, over-dramaticised by the hopelessly left wing BBC.

Erm, the only banner headlines was on The Sun, didn't see the Mail but it'll be very a prominent story, apparently it was on their website.
The Guardian had it as a small story buried inside.

So the theories (paranoia's?) of the likes of Richard Littlejohn, the Murdoch press, don't really hold up, do they?
God knows why anyone not with a stake in Murdoch or the Mail would take their ravings seriously?
Which is where this anti BBC stuff has always come from, in particular, that nice Mr Murdoch and his squeaky clean, not at all deceptive, criminal organisation? Why still lap their shit up?

I don't like Cameron, politics aside it's fairly well known he's not nice to his subordinates, any awkward question in the Commons, not always from the Opposition either, he goes red faced and get's very personal.
But - I don't condemn him or his wife for this lapse, I do believe it when they say they were distraught.

There is a question however about the Personal Protection Officers.
Though we don't want to go down the path of excessive security.
Even though times have changed, in the 1960's PM Harold Wilson would introduce his (single) PPO as this is Fred, his job is to shoot the man who shoots me!

Quoting GDB (Reply 24):So the theories (paranoia's?) of the likes of Richard Littlejohn, the Murdoch press, don't really hold up, do they?
God knows why anyone not with a stake in Murdoch or the Mail would take their ravings seriously?
Which is where this anti BBC stuff has always come from, in particular, that nice Mr Murdoch and his squeaky clean, not at all deceptive, criminal organisation? Why still lap their shit up?

Oh believe me, I don't take any of the Murdoch empires publications seriously, the vast majority of their articles are absolute rubbish written for the ignorant. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they would latch onto this story.

However, they don't claim to be impartial. The BBC does. A company which is funded by tax payers money should be impartial and informative, unfortunately the BBC is neither. Every political article written by the BBC has a clear left-wing slant. Heck, even director general Mark Thompson has admitted as such:

I saw the coverage of this story on the BBC, it was 'a' headline, now the headline. And the coverage, if you count people quoted about it, was sympathetic to the Cameron's.

Their Political Editor was a head of the Conservative Students at his Uni, there is of course higher up, Chris Patten.
Mr Clarkson is no apostle for left wing politics, he gets more leeway then anyone.

What I saw of the Jubilee river pageant was not good, what I saw of the rest of it seemed OK, the river thing was not an easy thing to cover so they went too far the other way in trying to compensate for what was a slow, long event.

For all it's faults, the BBC is a bulwark against excessive media control by, in the case of Murdoch, foreign oligarchs.
Which is why his organisation hates them so.

There have been, since TV became the mass news source, three major flare ups between a government and the BBC.
Two were Labour governments, Wilson in the 1960's - rather more left of centre than the party today, Blair of course over Iraq/David Kelly. And under Tories, no surprise, it was Maggie Thatcher.

The more committed of the pro and anti camps in the Iraq war in 2003, both accused the BBC of 'bias'.
Republic, them of the soggy, miserable demo by the river, constantly accuse them of being too obsequious in Royal coverage, which if true, is not a very left wing position to take.